SH. FARUKH JEHAN ZEB ,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ANANT NAG

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

147 of the Income Tax Act is confirmed.” 8 Farukh Ahmad Zeb v. ITO 5. The Ld. AR for the appellant submitted that the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by confirming the actions of the AO of additions made u/s 68 of the Act on the basis of unexplained credits found in the books

M/S BLUE CITY TOWNSHIP & COLONIZERS,AMRITSAR. vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AMRITSAR.

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

reassessment are held to be devoid of any merits and substance and therefore, same are as such rejected. 12. In ground no. 3 & 4, the assessee has challenged approval granted by the CIT u/s 151 for issuing notice u/s 147 as bad in law. This issue of approval granted u/s 151 of the Income

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSAR. vs. SH. JAIMAL SINGH, L/H. SH. PREM CHAND,, TARN TARAN

In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

section 69 will I.T.A. No. 82/Asr/2016 9 & C.O. 11/Asr/2016 not be applicable to the legal heir for the assessee and also challenged the jurisdiction for reassessment u/s 147 without issuing the notice u/s 133(6) of the Act. 6. The ld. DR placed that the issue was already agitated before

SAINIK CO OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LIMITED,JAMMU AND KASHMIR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), JAMMU, JAMMU

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed on the legal issue as indicated above

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 698/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14

147 on 23.05.2023 is bad in law since, the jurisdictional notice issued u/s 148 on 25.07.2022 is bad in law. 5. That the CIT(A) has erred in not taking cognizance of the details of receipts and expenditure furnished in the return of income filed in response to notice issued u/s 148 whereby it was made clear that receipts

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),FEROZEPUR, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

u/s 147 / 148 , against the assessee, (for which the assessee is not in appeal ), but he has decided the issue in favour of the assessee, on merits of the case allowing the appeal by observing as follows: “Legal contention: I have perused the assessment order and the submission made by the Appellant. The AO has issued notice under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, FEROZEPUR vs. MS.JATIN AGRO, FORT ROAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 103 & 104/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2017-18 Ito, Ward-3(1), Vs. M/S Jatin Agro Fort Road, Ferozepur. 152-P, Ferozepur. [Pan:-Aarpm5393F] (Appellant) (Respondent) Sh. Ashray Sarna, Ca Appellant By Respondent By Sh. Sunil Gautam, Cit. Dr

u/s 147 / 148 , against the assessee, (for which the assessee is not in appeal ), but he has decided the issue in favour of the assessee, on merits of the case allowing the appeal by observing as follows: “Legal contention: I have perused the assessment order and the submission made by the Appellant. The AO has issued notice under section

NASA AGRO INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,FAZILKA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

Section 147 (a) of the Act the Act. (2) If satisfaction is arrived at on the basis of any relevant material, such satisfaction cannot be assailed, Tilak raj bedi vs JCIT (2009) 319 ITR 385-P&H- The power of reassessment can be validly exercised if satisfaction is arrived at after following due procedure that income had escaped assessment. Such

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), JALANDHAR, , CIVIL LINES vs. SH. BARJESH SINGHAL, MODERN COLONY

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

28,30,000.00 Only Salary Creditworthiness doubted Kiran Singhal ( PAN ACUPS7287D) 2,35,85,000.00 Only othersource income not creditworthy Kamla Rani ( PAN AKRPR7513A) 10,00,000.00 No documentray evidence Dalip Gupta ( ABEPG0056D) 2,50,000.00 No documentary evidence 2,76,65,000.00 12. The matter carried in appeal before the ld. first appellate authority has been disposed

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH. CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

reassessment proceedings provided he has reasons to believe but the same cannot be taken recourse to on the basis of reasons to suspect-ITO & Ors, vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das 1976 CTR (SC) 220 (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) relied on". Therefore, the very assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 on the basis of the "reason" recorded is vitiated. Thus, the reasons

SMT. SATYAWATI MARWAHA THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH, CHANDER SHEIKHAR MARWAHA,JALANDHAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR

In the result, the appeal for Asstt

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

reassessment proceedings provided he has reasons to believe but the same cannot be taken recourse to on the basis of reasons to suspect-ITO & Ors, vs. Lakhmani Mewal Das 1976 CTR (SC) 220 (1976) 103 ITR 437 (SC) relied on". Therefore, the very assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 on the basis of the "reason" recorded is vitiated. Thus, the reasons

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

147 of the Act. This is submitted as required. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, M/s DMR Builders Pvt. Ltd. 7.1 Subsequently, in course of assessment proceedings various notices were issued u/s 142(1) , raising various queries and replies to such queries were made by the assessee, necessary directions issued by Additional CIT u/s 144A were considered, and after elaborate discussion

DCIT, CIRCLE-1, BATHINDA vs. DMR BUILDERS PVT LTD, BATHINDA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed being devoid of merits

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. Nos. 292 & 293/Asr/2024 Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18

147 of the Act. This is submitted as required. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, M/s DMR Builders Pvt. Ltd. 7.1 Subsequently, in course of assessment proceedings various notices were issued u/s 142(1) , raising various queries and replies to such queries were made by the assessee, necessary directions issued by Additional CIT u/s 144A were considered, and after elaborate discussion

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

28. The appellants have raised following identical grounds of appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year 2014-15. “1. That the order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O. LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CERCLE- II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

28. The appellants have raised following identical grounds of appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year 2014-15. “1. That the order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH. S/O.LATE.SH. GURMAIL SINGH,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

28. The appellants have raised following identical grounds of appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year 2014-15. “1. That the order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated

SH. ARASHPREET SINGH S/O LATE SH. GURMAIL SINGH,SHRI MUKATSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

28. The appellants have raised following identical grounds of appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year 2014-15. “1. That the order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated

LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH.S/O. LATE SH. LAL SINGH,SRI MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE -II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

28. The appellants have raised following identical grounds of appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year 2014-15. “1. That the order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated

SH. ARSPREET SINGH . S/O. LATE. SH. GURMAIL SINGH ,MUKTSAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE .II, BATHINDA

Appeals are disposed of in the terms and observation made as above

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

28. The appellants have raised following identical grounds of appeal against the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, in ITA No. 59 & 64/Asr/2019 in respect of the Assessment Year 2014-15. “1. That the order passed under section 250(6) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda in Appeal No. 135-IT/17-18 dated